Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:3mm is the key (Score 5, Informative) 368

And now we compare that with the tax breaks, subsidaries and profits for the oil and coal industry between 1989 and 2009. And suddenly we are talking about pocket change. They get $2.4 billion per year in tax breaks only, while the whole money spent on climate research (which includes weather forecasts, which people like to forget) is just $1.6 billion per year. And this does not include the $6.5 billion in subsidies per year for oil and gas. And the $14 billion per year subsidies for Nonconventional fuels (e.h. oil from shale, from tar sands, coal seams and coal based synthetic fuels). And the tax break of about $1 billion per year by declaring Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains.

So where are the government founded profits, in launching satellites and building expensive computers for weather forecasts and climate modelling at $1.6 billion per year and which aren't profitable to sell, or in mining coal and oil and gas for $25 billion in subsidies, and which you can then sell for a profit on the market?

So whoever brings up the financial gain argument against the climate scientists, has to honestly conclude that the financial interest on the anti-climate-scientist-stance is much more plausible. If you want to follow the money, the big stinking trace goes to oil and gas, and not to climate research and renewables.

Comment Re:The cars can detect gestures. (Score 1) 235

Yeah, I had a cop put his signal on in the middle of a construction zone where there were barrels blocking both the shoulder and the median. I pulled over at the end of the construction and he was pissed that I waited so long. I guess he wanted me to just stop in the middle of the lane. Then again he was also insistent that I must be stoned, and was interrogating me as to why I was in his city when my car is registered in a different county, all over a dead tail-light, so it was probably just him.

Comment Re:Causation? (Score 1) 87

On the other hand: The most cited papers are those that describe some research method, which is often highly specialized, e.g. some test, some experiment, some analysis method. But if you use their methodology in your paper, you cite them because they describe in detail what you are doing. If you are doing some gene manipulation, you will cite some papers which describe how to detect and isolate genes. If you are doing geology, you will cite some papers about how to determine the age of stones. If you are counting species, you will cite the papers which describe how to tell two quite similar species apart etc.pp.

Normally this should give papers with long names some push.

Comment Re:Judging by the story so far... (Score 4, Insightful) 367

First of all: While being caught doing something immoral may cause embarrassement, feeling embarrassed does not necessarily imply immorality. And getting into a deep depression about some event that lets you commit suicide does not imply embarrassement at all. All you expose here is a very simplistic world view of moralinic acidicy.

Or to put it in a more graphic picture: It is totally ok to have a penis (half of the world population has one), it is absolutely ok to change your pants from time to time, and it's a pure necessity to put your pants down to do so. Nevertheless it's still embarrassing for most of us to be caught pants down and having our wang being stared at by lots of bystanders.

Second: As far as I know, it never said in the Terms and Conditions of Ashley Madison that you have to be in a relationship based on respective sexual faithfulness to be entitled to use the service. Thus all you can tell about the people registered with Ashley Madison is that with a high probability they once were looking for sexual encounters. Thus the argument that people who committed suicide because of the breach of Ashley Madison had it coming to them amounts to the idea that searching for a sexual encounter should be punishable by death. For a short time I was cherishing the thought of what if this was true for people with this world view and I smirked because it implied that people with this morality compass would be forbidden to procreate.

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 1) 345

No, the major reason the B-70 program was cancelled was the increasing range (altitude) of SAMs.

Exactly. If your bombers are going to be shot down by SAMs anyway, it makes no economic sense to use supersonic ones. You'd just be wasting fuel and limiting payload. Instead, you stick with subsonic (or barely supersonic, if you want to count the B1).

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score -1, Troll) 345

Flying higher and faster was always the right thing to be doing.

Says who?

Not if it takes an order of magnitude more fuel in an era where the airlines are nickel-and-diming you for each goddamned bag of peanuts.

If you think that supersonic airliners are so lucrative, why haven't you started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new startup? You're sure to make buckets of coin.

Comment Re:Yep, aviation is still safe (Score 2) 345

In one day, the Concorde went from the statistically safest aircraft per passenger-mile to the statistically most dangerous aircraft per passenger-mile. Kind of similar to the Space Shuttle: They both worked until they didn't, and comparatively few people ever flew on either vehicle.

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 1) 345

Even towards the end of its career it made money and for a lot of people in the world

Only if you ignore the astronomical sunken costs that had already been shouldered by British and French taxpayers.

The US experience with the XB-70 led us to realize that extreme supersonic speeds don't make economic sense even for waging thermonuclear war. So we wisely avoided this supersonic transport boondoggle.

Comment Re:Huh (Score 5, Funny) 135

I never knew people were made of lead and cadmium.

People are really high on the food chain. Similar to swordfish and sharks, humans tend to accumulate high concentrations of heavy metals.

The FDA recommends that pregnant women avoid eating people at all, and most others should limit themselves to one or two servings per week.

Comment Re:The reason they're doing better than others... (Score 1) 111

The reason they're doing better than taxi and limousine industries is because they're not involved with unions and tons of bureaucracy. Simple as that. Been proven time and time again, unions and red tape kills productivity and innovation. SOLVED. You're welcome.

...and you don't think that it has anything to do at all with the fact that the new business involves a convenient app connected to an efficient centralized planning service, whereas the old business usually involves things like trying to wave down any empty yellow cars that might happen to pass by? Either approach could be implemented with or without unions.

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Working...